M. BALAKRISHNAN UPSA, SRUP SCHOOL, KUNISSERY, PALAKKAD Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, an Upper Primary School Assistant, approached this Court on various occasions while his legal and genuine rights were trampled upon by the manager of the school in which the teacher is employed. This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment of the learned single judge dated 26.05.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 766 of 2012 of this Court.

(2.) The facts in a nutshell are as under: The appellant was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant in Sitaram Upper Primary School, Kunisery, Palakkad on 01.06.1989. While he was working so, he was placed under suspension on 27.01.2000 as per Ext P1, by the 4th respondent, the Manager of the school. But the 3rd respondent, who is the Assistant Educational Officer, (AEO) refused to grant permission to extend the period of suspension beyond 15 days and directed to reinstate him under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. The 4th respondent Manager did not comply with the order and he filed O.P.No. 5309 of 2000 before this Court challenging the order. But his attempt was not successful. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated as per the direction of the Government by an order dated 21.10.2000. Disciplinary proceedings proceeded against the appellant and penalty of withholding three increments without cumulative effect was imposed on him. It was not approved by the AEO. Subsequently it was modified as one increment with cumulative effect. This proposal was also rejected by the AEO. Thereafter, the Government reduced the punishment as censure by an order dated 27.5.2008. Then the 4th respondent regularised the period of suspension from 27.01.2000 to 23.10.2000 as eligible leave. Contending that the period of suspension has to be treated as duty and that he is entitled for all the benefits as per Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 766 of 2012.

(3.) The 4th respondent in the writ petition contended that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant for his disobedience, dereliction of duty, irresponsible attitude etc. and he was found guilty and penalty of censure was imposed under Rule 6(1) of Chapter XIV of KER. Hence, he is not entitled for the benefits contemplated under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of KER.